Eun-Ju Lee1, Hyun Kang, Dong-Ho Kim. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung-Ang University School of Medicine/Chung-Ang University Hospital, 224-1, Heuksuk-Dong, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul 156-755, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) is a feasible alternative to radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) for early-stage cervical cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, matched case-control study of 24 consecutive cases with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer who underwent LRH by a single surgeon between January 1994 and December 2001. Cases were matched with controls (ratio 1:2) who underwent RAH by surgeon, age, stage and histology. Patient characteristics, clinical course, intra-operative complications and disease-free survival were compared between the two groups. Median counts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences between means were compared using Student's t-test. Dichotomous groupings were analyzed using Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Survival data were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The mean estimated blood loss in the RAH group was significantly greater than that in the LRH group (836.0 ml and 414.3 ml, respectively; p<0.001). Five patients (20.8%) from the LRH group and 23 patients (47.9%) from the RAH group received blood transfusion (p<0.03). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group compared with the RAH group (10.7 days and 18.8 days, respectively; p<0.01). No statistically significant difference existed between the two groups with respect to operative time, pelvic lymph node count, frequency of lymph node involvement, extent of parametrial or vaginal resection margins, adjuvant treatment and intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 78 months for the LRH group and 75 months for the RAH group. There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease-free survival rate between the groups (90.5% and 93.3% for LRH and RAH, respectively; p=0.918). CONCLUSIONS: LRH is a useful alternative to RAH for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. The benefits of LRH include reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and shorter hospital stay, with comparable oncologic outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) is a feasible alternative to radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) for early-stage cervical cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, matched case-control study of 24 consecutive cases with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer who underwent LRH by a single surgeon between January 1994 and December 2001. Cases were matched with controls (ratio 1:2) who underwent RAH by surgeon, age, stage and histology. Patient characteristics, clinical course, intra-operative complications and disease-free survival were compared between the two groups. Median counts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences between means were compared using Student's t-test. Dichotomous groupings were analyzed using Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Survival data were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The mean estimated blood loss in the RAH group was significantly greater than that in the LRH group (836.0 ml and 414.3 ml, respectively; p<0.001). Five patients (20.8%) from the LRH group and 23 patients (47.9%) from the RAH group received blood transfusion (p<0.03). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group compared with the RAH group (10.7 days and 18.8 days, respectively; p<0.01). No statistically significant difference existed between the two groups with respect to operative time, pelvic lymph node count, frequency of lymph node involvement, extent of parametrial or vaginal resection margins, adjuvant treatment and intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 78 months for the LRH group and 75 months for the RAH group. There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease-free survival rate between the groups (90.5% and 93.3% for LRH and RAH, respectively; p=0.918). CONCLUSIONS:LRH is a useful alternative to RAH for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. The benefits of LRH include reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and shorter hospital stay, with comparable oncologic outcome.
Authors: Roni Nitecki; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Kate J Krause; Ana I Tergas; Jason D Wright; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jong Ha Hwang; Myong Cheol Lim; Jae Young Joung; Sang-Soo Seo; Sokbom Kang; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Sang-Yoon Park Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245